Montana Special Election takeaways
So not exactly a surprise that the Republican candidate won in a state like Montana, but at least Dems are closing the gap. We really need to see an election in a purple state to really get a handle on how things are going to turn out overall, which won't happen until 2018 I guess?
It does show however that as much as Dems and people who lean that way might want to believe, most of the current political scandal and mess with Trump just isn't at all percolating into right-leaning voters. Gianaforte was protrump through his entire campaign and it seemed to have no impact at all. At best we won't see that until 2020. I don't think they really care about Russia or any of these daily scandals. They need to be directly affected, which won't happen until until GOP policies get signed into law.
But it doesn't need to reach right leaning voters to have an effect. Like you said, closing the gap. Doesn't change the outcome where the gap is huge, but there are a lot of closer races.
Witness the two state seats that flipped on Tuesday.
Well...I guess I didn't do a good job of fully expressing my point.
If Trump's unpopularity was starting to eat into the Republican voters, that would probably start sending signals to the rest of the party. Basically Trump still hasn't become a liability, and until that happens your not going to get much movement on any of the investigations underway.
So like...basically I am seeing tons of folks getting worked up about the possibility of the big "I word". But the election still shows that not being a real possibility anytime soon.
Purple state? Virginia this November.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civil democracy is dead. It was body slammed in Montana
"Yes. Highly uncivilized. In my day gentlemen used canes for such endeavors!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Civil democracy is dead. It was body slammed in Montana"Yes. Highly uncivilized. In my day gentlemen used canes for such endeavors!"
Democrats Are Turning to the Absolute Worst Person for Help Winning the 2018 Election
The future, in a presidential election, a statewide election, or a congressional, is in the suburbs, where more moderate voters exist...I purposely recruited candidates who reflected the temperament, tenor and culture of their district. I didn’t try to elect somebody that fit my image. I tried to help elect somebody that fit the image and the profile of the district.I kind of knew this was the direction things were going - Democrats as moderate Republicans...
That has a great track record so far.
In a moderate or conservative district, would you rather:
a) run a progressive candidate who isn't competitive
b) run a more moderate candidate who is competitive
c) not run a candidateI get why you find this disagreeable, because he's talking about intentionally running not-so-progressive candidates. My rebuttal, is that you seem to be ignoring the very real situation where significant groups of people don't vote for democrats and being more progressive might actually make democrats LESS electable. I don't think we should drift the entire party to the right, but if you want to shift the COUNTRY to the left, you have to bring them with, not leave them behind. If you aren't interested in shifting the country left, I've got bad news for your progressive agenda.
Should progressive politicians and voters write those districts off?
Bernie Sanders is the white male progressive's candidate, but we should listen to what Rahm "Liberals are f+%!ing retarded--oh, and I covered up the killing of Laquan MacDonald for 400 days so I could get reelected" Emanuel has to say?
I must admit that I, for one, don't understand at all where you "identity politics" Democrats are coming from.
Earlier you accused me of making a non sequitur in order to change the subject. If you're going to complain about me doing it, you shouldn't do it either.
I wasn't discussing Rahm Emanuel. I was discussing a thing Rahm Emanuel said. Do you want to discuss that thing? Or do you want to change the subject to Rahm Emanuel? If you want to change the subject, instead of assuming my opinion, you could put something forward and ask me what my opinion is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bringing up what Rahm Emanuel did in order to win elections when discussing his opinion on how to win elections is a non sequitur?
Also, Comrade Jeff, if you're referring to me, I wasn't "talking up" Brand New Congress. I was discussing what I knew about them when Comrade Fergie brought them up.
As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, we had a debate with them. I guess I didn't spell it out, but I completely disagree with their perspective and provided a small example of how "progressive left"/right-wing alliances lead nowhere.
Bringing up what Rahm Emanuel did in order to win elections when discussing his opinion on how to win elections is a non sequitur?
Also, Comrade Jeff, if you're referring to me, I wasn't "talking up" Brand New Congress. I was discussing what I knew about them when Comrade Fergie brought them up.
As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, we had a debate with them. I guess I didn't spell it out, but I completely disagree with their perspective and provided a small example of how "progressive left"/right-wing alliances lead nowhere.
They either break down completely, or turn into the mushy grey moderate compromise that no one wants to vote for.
Bringing up what Rahm Emanuel did in order to win elections when discussing his opinion on how to win elections is a non sequitur?
Also, Comrade Jeff, if you're referring to me, I wasn't "talking up" Brand New Congress. I was discussing what I knew about them when Comrade Fergie brought them up.
As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, we had a debate with them. I guess I didn't spell it out, but I completely disagree with their perspective and provided a small example of how "progressive left"/right-wing alliances lead nowhere.
In a discussion about Obama bombing people in the middle-east, you called my question about the different tactics in middle-east countries a non-sequitur.
Just curious, do you think it's possible to agree with someone on one thing, but disagree with them on another?
Or do you think we should all adhere to Guy's rules that if you agree with one thing, you are now beholden to defending EVERYTHING by that person? It seems like a really exhausting and stupid way to have a conversation.
In a discussion about Obama bombing people in the middle-east, you called my question about the different tactics in middle-east countries a non-sequitur.Bringing up what Rahm Emanuel did in order to win elections when discussing his opinion on how to win elections is a non sequitur?
Also, Comrade Jeff, if you're referring to me, I wasn't "talking up" Brand New Congress. I was discussing what I knew about them when Comrade Fergie brought them up.
As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, we had a debate with them. I guess I didn't spell it out, but I completely disagree with their perspective and provided a small example of how "progressive left"/right-wing alliances lead nowhere.
You mean the discussion where you referred to some non-military actions of Obama as his "worst" and Comrade Fergie said there was worse stuff and you said, "I'm a pacifist, do you want a circle jerk?" and then pressed him on which American occupation/bombing he liked best?
Just curious, do you think it's possible to agree with someone on one thing, but disagree with them on another?Or do you think we should all adhere to Guy's rules that if you agree with one thing, you are now beholden to defending EVERYTHING by that person? It seems like a really exhausting and stupid way to have a conversation.
Again, discussing what Rahm did to win elections while discussing Rahm's opinions on how to win elections seems pretty pertinent.
Going back to your original question, which opinion of yours was I assuming? That Bernie Sanders is the white male progressive's candidate or that we should listen to a word Rahm has to say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Guys...maybe you should take this to Private Messaging? Lets try to keep the thread nice and well mannered while the mods are all dealing with Paizocon.
Well, the f-word and r-word are direct quotes from the man.
"Circle jerk" was me; the exact phrase turns out to be "masturbatory agreement session."
Other than that, I can't see what's not nice or well-mannered about the discussion, but, since Paizocon's going on, I will just nod my head in agreement and smile along with the opinions of a yuppie racist piece of shiznit (Rahm, not Irontruth) until it's over.
Someone let me know when it's over.
Just curious, do you think it's possible to agree with someone on one thing, but disagree with them on another?Or do you think we should all adhere to Guy's rules that if you agree with one thing, you are now beholden to defending EVERYTHING by that person? It seems like a really exhausting and stupid way to have a conversation.
Again, discussing what Rahm did to win elections while discussing Rahm's opinions on how to win elections seems pretty pertinent.
Going back to your original question, which opinion of yours was I assuming? That Bernie Sanders is the white male progressive's candidate or that we should listen to a word Rahm has to say?
Who introduced Laquan McDonald into the conversation? You or me?
I agreed with Rahm that sometimes a more moderate candidate has a better chance to win an election than a more progressive one. You took that and cited it as approval for his actions involved with Laquan's case.
A broken clock is still right twice a day. Just because I agree with ONE comment of Rahm, doesn't mean I agree with everything, or even a majority of things, he has said.
The article Comrade Fergie linked.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, you should definitely take this thing to a private channel. Doodles, you have a tendency to be passive aggressive during political discussions and plead communism when called on it. Irontruth, you seem to have a problem with getting adversarial when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you.
. . .
Me? No, I'm absolutely perfect, why can't you just be as cool as I am?
[Smiles and nods in agreement]
Guys, you should definitely take this thing to a private channel. Doodles, you have a tendency to be passive aggressive during political discussions and plead communism when called on it. Irontruth, you seem to have a problem with getting adversarial when has the temerity to disagree with you.
. . .
Me? No, I'm absolutely perfect, why can't you just be as cool as I am?
I like to think that I am aggressive aggressive.
OMG, "like to think," is a very passive aggressive sentiment; trust me, I know.
Guys, you should definitely take this thing to a private channel. Doodles, you have a tendency to be passive aggressive during political discussions and plead communism when called on it. Irontruth, you seem to have a problem with getting adversarial when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you.
. . .
Me? No, I'm absolutely perfect, why can't you just be as cool as I am?
I've been in a lot of discussions where I have politely disagree with others.
I agree, I've gotten adversarial a lot lately. I also feel like instead of discussing my ideas, people are coming at me personally. Maybe people aren't intending to do that, but that's how it has felt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, part of the problem might be that you are reading into things that aren't there.
For example, I never cited your agreement with Rahm on winning elections as approval of his handling of police killings. We've been in enough police brutality threads together that I don't need to be told that you disapproved of them.
I did ask, and am still asking, given his record and what he has done to win elections, why we should listen to a word he has to say about winning elections and coupled it with your earlier dismissal of Sanders as the white male progressive's candidate. I suppose the answer is because Rahm won and Sanders didn't, but I don't see any benefit in winning elections to make sure that the official covering up for police killings (or, for that matter, shutting down schools, attacking unions, etc.) has a "D" after their name.
Well, part of the problem might be that you are reading into things that aren't there.
For example, I never cited your agreement with Rahm on winning elections as approval of his handling of police killings. We've been in enough police brutality threads together that I don't need to be told that you disapproved of them.
I did ask, and am still asking, given his record and what he has done to win elections, why we should listen to a word he has to say about winning elections and coupled it with your earlier dismissal of Sanders as the white male progressive's candidate. I suppose the answer is because Rahm won and Sanders didn't, but I don't see any benefit in winning elections to make sure that the official covering up for police killings (or, for that matter, shutting down schools, attacking unions, etc.) has a "D" after their name.
Don't say "I suppose the answer" and whatever else after, that's exactly the sort of passive aggressive junk I was talking about earlier. Just state your question.
. . .
Hope that didn't sound bossy. Once again, private messages wouldn't lock the thread, like ever.
Well, part of the problem might be that you are reading into things that aren't there.
For example, I never cited your agreement with Rahm on winning elections as approval of his handling of police killings. We've been in enough police brutality threads together that I don't need to be told that you disapproved of them.
I did ask, and am still asking, given his record and what he has done to win elections, why we should listen to a word he has to say about winning elections and coupled it with your earlier dismissal of Sanders as the white male progressive's candidate. I suppose the answer is because Rahm won and Sanders didn't, but I don't see any benefit in winning elections to make sure that the official covering up for police killings (or, for that matter, shutting down schools, attacking unions, etc.) has a "D" after their name.
Don't say "I suppose the answer" and whatever else after, that's exactly the sort of passive aggressive junk I was talking about earlier. Just state your question.
. . .
Hope that didn't sound bossy. Once again, private messages wouldn't lock the thread, like ever.
How is that passive aggressive? It occurred to me while I was composing the post, after I stated the question, so I included it.
Also, since it keeps coming up, I have no interest in continuing the conversation via private message, and while I shouldn't speak for him, I doubt Irontruth does either.
Private messaging is for things like him saying we should get a drink while I'm at socialist summer camp in Minnesota and me replying thank you, but I am not going and returning the invitation if he is ever in New England.
Well, part of the problem might be that you are reading into things that aren't there.
For example, I never cited your agreement with Rahm on winning elections as approval of his handling of police killings. We've been in enough police brutality threads together that I don't need to be told that you disapproved of them.
I did ask, and am still asking, given his record and what he has done to win elections, why we should listen to a word he has to say about winning elections and coupled it with your earlier dismissal of Sanders as the white male progressive's candidate. I suppose the answer is because Rahm won and Sanders didn't, but I don't see any benefit in winning elections to make sure that the official covering up for police killings (or, for that matter, shutting down schools, attacking unions, etc.) has a "D" after their name.
You're right, the answer is "because he's won".
Again, that doesn't mean everything, or even a majority, of Rahm's ideas are good ideas. He does have a track record of success though, and in this one instance, he's right. Some districts have more conservative voters than liberal voters. If you (proverbial you, not specific you) are serious about having a 435-district strategy (which we all know YOU aren't, because voting is for ninnies), matching the right candidate to the right district should be a consideration.
Jason Kander isn't a great candidate for a congressional district in Harlem, but he's a very good candidate for Missouri (he lost by 3 points, but he's young and I think he'll be back).
Edit: if you asked me "Should Rahm have a leadership position in the Democratic Party?"
My answer would be "No."
He's willing to sell his soul to the devil for a political win. He's very smart and shrewd, but winning is more important to him than values or principles. Or rather, he seems like his only values/principles are winning. That kind of thinking is what gets us Clinton's most conservative "victories" in the 90's and on the Republican side: Trump.
Or do you think we should all adhere to Guy's rules that if you agree with one thing, you are now beholden to defending EVERYTHING by that person? It seems like a really exhausting and stupid way to have a conversation.That's not my rules, it's just one you decided to tack onto me. I mean I get that you're trying to stifle criticism, you don't like me complaining about your beloved corporate democrats, but having valid complaints does not equate to what you're suggesting my position is. If the conversation seems exhausting and stupid it's probably because you're having a hard time assuming or inventing other people's positions.
Bolded section, you're doing it. Right there. That's what annoys me.
If you left that part out right there, you'd have an argument. But you included that part, reinforcing "your rule". You're not going after ideas, you're directly putting ME in the argument.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of us on the left are arguing for the democrat party more out of practicality than us being infatuated with Clinton or Schumer.
The problem under comparison is not just about physical altercations in the body politic - it's about how this ties into the "lugenpresse" narrative that's common on the Trump-supporting side of the aisle.
I don't think it has any larger implications, nor is it anything new (as i was pointing out with the caning incident). Its one pushy reporter and one hot headed politician, nothing more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that we have seen progressive gains under democrats. Which you sort of dismiss.
I absolutely reject the notion that Democrats = Republicans are the same, which is a very easily refuted stance if you compare the policies each group support.
I'd like the democrats to be more progressive...sure. But they have to work with the political and cultural realities of our country. I'd rather have a moderately progressive party in control of parts of the government than a uber-progressive party with no influence.
]I dismiss the corporate democrats, not the democrats in general. I like Warren and Gabberd for example, Sanders obviously, but they're progressive voices in a party who's leadership might not care what they have to say. They'll use them to get votes or contributions but that's not to say that they'll have much impact on that party's policy as a whole.
And because you (a canadian) like them they therefore are popular and can win elections? They're from the two most liberal areas of the country. they're not going to play well anywhere less liberal than their stomping grounds.
The cold war propaganda has left a seething hate of anything remotely smacking of socialism* and it doesn't stop at the mason dison line. People are easily conditioned to angrily vote at the polls by add machines that cost millions of dollars, while most of the public is put off by the constant squabbling and buying into the argument that they're all the same.
* for the poor anyway
Why vote if it doesn't change anything though?
Why keep answering this canard if it doesn't change anything about the conversation? HOW many times have we shown this isn't the case, in this thread. 15? 20?
No no, I'm using your rule of assuming other people's positions. In this case I'm assuming that you like the corporate democrats as you're assuming my position. This is how I have to debate with you.Or do you think we should all adhere to Guy's rules that if you agree with one thing, you are now beholden to defending EVERYTHING by that person? It seems like a really exhausting and stupid way to have a conversation.That's not my rules, it's just one you decided to tack onto me. I mean I get that you're trying to stifle criticism, you don't like me complaining about your beloved corporate democrats, but having valid complaints does not equate to what you're suggesting my position is. If the conversation seems exhausting and stupid it's probably because you're having a hard time assuming or inventing other people's positions.Bolded section, you're doing it. Right there. That's what annoys me.
If you left that part out right there, you'd have an argument. But you included that part, reinforcing "your rule". You're not going after ideas, you're directly putting ME in the argument.
You know what, do what you gotta do.
I threw fuel on the fire, trying to point out a bad thing going on in this conversation and I did it poorly. My fault. You do what you feel you need to do.
A good look at the rifts in the Democratic Party
The Democratic defeat ... exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their shots in battling for control of Congress in 2018, and more militant grass-roots activists who want to fight the Republicans everywhere.
And the election of the party chair for California is now in dispute after the Sanders candidate lost by 60 votes.
The 'liberal versus corporate' fight for the assets of the Democratic party is happening, and elections won't be won until that gets resolved.
The issue is not getting centerists to vote Democratic, or getting non-voters energized. The issue is who is going to control the party apparatus.
If liberals want to see the party move left, they have to be involved in the party. Everyone who wants to see a change needs to become a precinct delegate, not an informed voter. By the time the election occurs, the decision about who the party will fund has already been made. If liberals don't start becoming delegates, the same old corporatists will keep making decisions
You can pontificate all you want on message boards, but if you aren't there when the votes are counted, you don't get to make the changes you think would help.
How does one go about becoming such a delegate, CrystalSeas?